John Lennox, Oxford professor and Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science, concisely gives us compelling reasons why two widely used anti-resurrection arguments don’t make much sense: Hume’s and Dawkins’ on “no possibility of miracles,” and the more widely scoffed-at “empty tomb” claims by the first Christians.
What amazes me, as it astonishes Lennox, is that anyone can rationally affirm and adhere to the 18th century philosopher Hume’s argument against miracles, which says that: miracles go against the laws of nature, therefore they don’t exist. We study nature and have found laws of nature by observation, but we can’t rightly claim that something doesn’t exist or won’t happen just because we know of such laws. What is even more odd is that Hume didn’t actually believe the Laws of Nature were necessarily always uniform: “He famously argues that, just because the sun has been observed to rise in the morning for thousands of years, it does not mean that we can be sure that it will rise tomorrow. This is an example of the Problem of Induction: on the basis of past experience you cannot predict the future, says Hume.” If this is so, then “if nature is not uniform, then using the uniformity of nature as an argument against miracles is simply absurd.”
In his usual clear style, CS Lewis points out how easily Hume’s argument can be refuted (as quoted by Lennox):
If this week I put a thousand pounds in the drawer of my desk, add two thousand next week and another thousand the week thereafter, the laws of arithmetic allow me to predict that the next time I come to my drawer, I shall find four thousand pounds. But suppose when I next open the drawer, I find only one thousand pounds, what shall I conclude? That the laws of arithmetic have been broken? Certainly not! I might more reasonably conclude that some thief has broken the laws of the State and stolen three thousand pounds out of my drawer. One thing it would be ludicrous to claim is that the laws of arithmetic make it impossible to believe in the existence of such a thief or the possibility of his intervention. On the contrary, it is the normal workings of those laws that have exposed the existence and activity of the thief.
After making some thoughtful points, Lennox concludes: “When a miracle takes place, it is the laws of nature that alert us to the fact that it is a miracle. It is important to grasp that Christians do not deny the laws of nature, as Hume implies they do. It is an essential part of the Christian position to believe in the laws of nature as descriptions of those regularities and cause-effect relationships built into the universe by its Creator and according to which it normally operates. If we did not know them, we should never recognise a miracle if we saw one.”
Lennox goes on to use biblical passages to flush out the truth that people at the time of Christ, and earlier, didn’t easily believe miracle stories either. They knew how nature worked and what was unusual or seemingly impossible. Therefore, their ancient witness is just as valid as if you or I saw Jesus resurrected. Lennox also discusses the real importance of female witnesses to the resurrection. Please see his article for the full discussion of certain anti-resurrection arguments used by skeptics, and the thoughtful responses he provides. And, have a joyful Easter!
One thought on “John Lennox on the Resurrection: why Hume, Dawkins, and others got it wrong”
I believe that C.S. Lewis is still a very relevant lay-theologian in the world of Christianity today. I would say that is was very progressive in his theology, and certainly ahead of his time.